Jump to content

>> Gameplay <<


Rocky
 Share

Recommended Posts

The Gameplay features we need to see in a tactical shooter.

This is a biggie, the original GR was so open because it has so many gameplay features that sadly have been eroded over the years instead of enhanced. This is your chance to identify those gameplay features that will make GR4 great!

SUMMARY

  • Command Map features
  • Sensible AI
  • Buildings WITH DOORS!
  • Realistic damage model i.e limp ezz good, medic eez bad, foot shot means limp not death, head shot means death.
  • Vehicles (land and air) available in missions, but not to drive (ie transport only).
  • 8 or 9 Man teams, and control of any one of them we want! (please lord, more than 4)
  • Realistic Fire and Movement (ie tactical)
  • Realistic Movement (3 speeds with short burst sprint only, no bunny hopping). Prone - no glitching. Lean (no 3rd person birds eye view around corners).
  • Non linear mission objectives
  • Map size, GR size as a minimum, but capability for larger maps for longer missions.
  • Destructable environment? Perhaps not there fully yet, but some kind of physics would help.
  • Ghillie suits that are difficult to spot, for humans AND AI.
  • Weapon ballistics inc. trajectories
  • soul-switching character control
  • ROE (like GR!)
  • Freindly AI i.e. non threatening civilians *please* this adds much needed realism and also many new mission opportunities and complexities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would love to see a consistent FOV that doesn't change when I use my scope or whatever. If you are allowed to zoom then only with a specific key regardless of what you are doing. A default FOV setting that doesn't induce tunnel vision would be nice.

And building up on AW: true first person with Trackir support.

I don't want a cover system that uses the third person. First person only please, everything else is for cutscenes.

How about a new take on the damage system? What Rocky mentioned should be the minimum, but maybe something as in the HL2 mod Occupation would be possible. Medics could stabilize critically wounded teammates after you drag them to cover and you have to rescue them or they will stay dead for the rest of the campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i like the idee with the medic, would be nice to have players/ai acting real when they are wounded,

until a medic fixes them up. i hope this time 1 will be in the game :wall:

for sure have doors and gates that are interaktive. that gives a lot possibilitys for the game.

also the possibility to climb and jump would be nice. maybe a grabbling hook to go up buildings.

i would like to see a higher viewrange or even better a option for mapmakers to control it.

but the most importend,

a destructable engine, so instead of walking in the front door, blow away the back wall :devil:

my 2 cents ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted this on the Ubi forums (GRAW-Console no less, still not sure why I did that) so I figured the easiest way to have my say was just to repeat myself:

Right. Here's a suggestion to what a new Ghost Recon game could look like. It's not "I must be like this!" and certainly not the answer to every question, but more an example of how things can be done differently. How the game could be based on the principles of the [Ghost Recon] and, perhaps, add something new.

The Ghost Recon Legacy

So what exactly was so great about the original? Well, it was designed to promote realistic (or at least realistic-ish) battlefield behavior in terms of fire and movement (unlike the bunnhopping, rocket flinging action FPS). It was squad based (rather than the usual FPS lone hero) and it was very non-linear, allowing the player to run around the map as desired, rather than being forced to follow a specific route.

Then there was the unit: D-Company, 1st Battalion, 5th Special Forces Group (Airborne), known as "The Ghosts". The nice thing about a fictional unit is that it gives quite a bit of creative freedom to conjure up interesting, if not always plausible, scenarios. There's no reason why we can't go a little further and make the Ghosts even more secretive, elite and versatile.

Fire & Movement

An absolute essential element of a realistic FPS is that the basics (i.e. moving and shooting) are very realistic.

Realistic movement means more than two speeds. Minimum three: Walk is slow, but quiet and conserves energy. A light jog is a good compromise between speed and tiring yourself out. Also, crawling really fast will seriously sap your strength. Sprint is for very short distances and emergencies and not to be done for any long periods. Jumping is for getting over a low obstacle or across a narrow ditch, not for bouncing six feet into the air like a kangaroo on PCP. Most obstacles are crossed by climbing/clambering: Through open windows, over low walls, over chain link fences (maybe) and, of course, up ladders. The ability for multiple characters to help each other over taller obstacles would be totally awesome, and probably not practical for a game.

Forget the cover system. Lean is used, not the least because it gives a level of freedom that the cover system simply can't. On the other hand, perhaps something more advanced than traditional lean is possible. Maybe think of it as a cover system that is tied not to any map object, but to when the player presses the "cover" button: The idea is to offer some more opportunities, such as the ability to gradually lean out, and to do it with or without the weapon up (difference being that to peek you only need to expose your eyes, but to shoot you need to expose the weapon as well). Blindfire too. But there will be no 3rd person view. You can only see what the character can see through his eyes, not via a magic camera floating behind the back of his neck. [EDIT] And then there is "vertical lean". That is, the ability to gradually look/aim over an obstacle (rather than having to pop up and expose most of your body), just like you can sideways. And this works from prone as well as kneeling. And vertical blindfire would be part of the package too.[/EDIT]

Realistic aiming means that hitting a target isn't something you just do. Heavy weapons like machineguns or heavy sniper rifles are actually quite... heavy. Keeping a weapon steady without supporting it against something is one thing, but a heavy weapon is also a problem if you're fighting at close range and have to twist and turn a lot. This is what the expanding crosshairs achieved. But maybe something better is availible. Like "Freelook", or something entirely new. Not to mention length being an issue inside confined spaces (like a corridor).

And "supported firing" means using a bipod, or a wall (or something else) to steady your weapon.

Encumbrance and fatigue is all about managing your resources. The more heavy gear you carry, the slower you move and the faster you will get tired. Short term fatigue is a high pulse and fast breathing, caused by heavy physical activity (like sprinting). Try aiming accurately, even supported, while your pulse is throbbing and your're panting like a dog. The sport of biathlon is build around this very premise. The good news is that a relatively short rest will get things under control. Long term fatigue is just the general energy level of your body: You can run faster and work harder if well rested than if you've spent a week doing hard work with little food or rest. A fully rested Ghost operative shouldn't have any problem with permanent fatigue within the time limit of a mission. Except you don't necessarily start all missions well rested: The Ghosts may have spent a week or more in the field, and their general energy levels will be low. The point of this is: Don't carry around stuff unless you need it. And don't do a lot of running and jumping unless you have to.

One feature that could be added is swimming and diving, mainly as a handy (and cool) way of getting close to the enemy without drawing attention to yourself. But of course, you don't just jump into the water, loaded down with body armour, weapons and ammunition. At least not if you expect to survive.

Maps & Missions

All GR games have had a story: Russian nationalists vs. Georgia, ending up with the nationalists being defeated on the Red Square (GR1). Mexican rebels attacking the US (and Mexican) President, ending with the rebels being killed (GRAW1). But there is a distinct difference between the original game (with expansions) and the later GR games: In the first game, once the mission started, you were free to pursue it as you saw fit, with completion of the objectives being the only yardstick. In the later games, you're fed the story during the mission. Which means you sometimes have to be at a particular location at a particular time, which means more, much much more, linearity. But a hallmark of the original was exactly non-linearity and I for one would like to see that again.

In fact, you could also argue that the traditional story could be ditched: The whole "the fate of the world is in your hands. Can you make it?" was always a bit silly. And quite frankly it would be refreshing with something else for a change. One way of doing it is to look at something like combat flight simulators: You have your planes and the opposition has his planes and you fight each other; sometimes you fly over his territory and bomb him, other times you try to keep him from bombing you. It's just a number of different missions after each other. There is no story, but there is a scenario: US vs. China, UK vs. Germany (WW2) or whatnot. There is a context for your missions, which can also be a great source of inspiration, without every action necessarily being about saving the world from nuclear annihilation or whatever. Like an Afghanistan scenario: The Ghosts arrive, carry out a series of spec ops missions (each mission may or may not be related to the others), and go home when their tour is over. Without necessarily having killed the evil Taliban leader in the final mission.

Size matters. Well, map size does. Not that all maps should necessarily be bigger, but some should. Some missions may take place within a very small area (like a palace raid) while others would greatly benefit from wide open spaces (like a long range patrol). With big maps comes long draw distance. Like 500m as an absolute minimum, and preferably double that. As a general rule, maps should be a little bigger than the amount of space you would reasonably use, simply to add that extra sense of freedom. Of course, you may actually want multiplayer maps top be smaller to keep players closer and the pace of combat higher.

Also, buildings will be open. That is, you can walk in the door (or crawl in the window). And I mean almost every building; only buildings with little or no gameplay value (like at the edge of the map) may be excluded. This will probably be a serious strain on hardware, so maps with few or no buildings, or very small urban maps, is an acceptable compromise. So is very spartan decoration of these buildings: It doesn't matter if it looks more like a mock-up urban warfare village than an actual habitat, as long as the urban warfare gameplay is right. By the same token, you will never, ever find an AI in a location that you cannot reach yourself, at least not within normal gameplay parameters.

While the fully destructible environment is a wonderful dream, the reults so far have been more like "partially destructible environment". A 5-round machinegun burst cutting down a tree wasn't entirely realistic anyway. With hardware restrictions and everything else, probably the best we can hope for is being able to completely destroy a building with an aircraft bomb or demolition charge. I'd love to be able to blast holes in walls for "unauthorized entry", but the odds are against it.

Equipment

When it comes to what you are wearing and what you are carrying, the equipment menu in Rainbow Six: Vegas 2 is actually a good starting point, except less gay and with "anti-sillyness measures".

First of all, forget the orange camouflage colours. Generally speaking, clothing and armour will only be availible in the colours availible in real life. Don't expect to see USMC hats with Russian winter camouflage patterns.

And don't expect to see three dozen different type of body armour either. You will have some choices to suit the mission (like heavy armour for the first man through the door, lighter, or no armour for others), but no more than that. And if the premise of the mission is a (hot) jungle patrol, you might not be able to use body armour at all, while an arctic winter mission will require you to wear heavy winter clothing. Which brings us to the "locked" kit selections: Apart from climate limitations, you may have to disguise yourself as regular troops on some missions, so you only get to choose among regular kit. Other times you may need to pass for a local, so only local attire will be availible.

Also, ghillie suits will be availible. And ghillied players will be harder for the AI to spot. However, getting the AI to distinguish between all your various bits of attire may be very difficult, so expect some clothing (like snow camouflage on a jungle mission) to be "banned" as a sillyness prevention. Camouflage will also be availble for weapons, on a limited basis (just some slabs of spray paint or tape in the dominant colour), no fancy digital camo, at least not as standard.

You may also have the option to put on a dry suit (which automatically comes with flippers and goggles). This waterproof rubber suit allow you to wear your standard uniform underneath: Once on land, you can take it off, get your kit (carried in a waterproof rubber bag) and get on with the mission. Same goes for any parachuting gear: You can ditch it when you land.

Some missions may require you to carry a big rucksack: The premise to the mission may be that the Ghost team has spent days out in the jungle (or desert) on patrol/observation before the actual mission starts. They will need those big rucksacks to carry food, sleeping bags, spare clothing, long range communications etc. (and, btw, you will not be allowed to choose any body armour for that mission). So in the loadout screen you must select it. You will get some room in it for additional kit, but most of the room will be taken up by the items mentioned above. Fortunately, you can ditch the very heavy and cumbersome rucksack (and pick it up later if you want) once the mission starts. A more "combat oriented" carrier is a small day sack, for carrying spare ammo, grenades and whatnot.

As far as weapons are concerned, they are measured by a mix of weight and equipment slots, so don't expect to be able to carry two machineguns. However, you will be given a little leeway so you can carry, for instance, an assault rifle and a shotgun (the latter for blasting door locks and whatnot). Just remember that you have to carry all the ammo as well. Also, the ammo (and stuff like spare weapons) has to compete for weight and space with kit items like binoculars, signal flares, explosive charges and other useful stuff. Also, the lighter you travel the faster you can go, and the later you will wear out.

Default loadouts will be availible, and you will be able to save your favourite configurations.

Weapons

As mentioned earlier, weight, length and inertia are important parameters, so you should choose your weapons carefully. Weapons include the usual suspects of handguns, submachineguns, assault rifles, machineguns, sniper rifles and shotguns. Including "exotic" calibers like the 6.8mm SPC for assault rifles and the .338 Lapua Magnum for sniper rifles.

Weapons will also have realistic recoil, ballistics, penetration against various objects and terminal performance. Ballistic trajectories mean that as ranges increase, you will have to compensate for bullet drop. Either by aiming above the target or by adjusting the range settings on the sight. Especially for something like a grenade launcher.

All of these weapons will be "clean", that is without any optical sights or other accessories. All those accessories can be added though, and they all work; nothing is added just for looks, with the exception of the vertical grip.

Optical sights would run the range from the Aimpoint through the ACOG to high-powered sniper scopes. Plus add-on night vision sights (used in association with day sights), standalone night sights, day/night sights and thermal sights. You will have tactical lights and laser sights, both availible in visible and infrared versions (the latter visible through night vision goggles but invisible to the naked eye). Additional accessories include the sound suppressor, grenade launcher, add-on shotgun and the bipod.

The rule is that any equipment that realistically and reasonably can be fitted to a weapon in real life, also fits in the game. So a handgun is rather limited in terms of accessories, while a modern assault rifle, liberally covered in Picatinny mounting rails, can be fitted with almost anything.

You also get a selection of "other" weapons like standalone grenade launchers, rocket launcers and shoulder-fired guided missiles, both anti tank missiles (which will use realistic guidance systems) and anti aircraft missiles like the Stinger. Various types of hand grenades, demolition charges and kit. Some of it maybe more fun to play with than strictly necessary, but hey, it's a game after all.

Non-lethal weapons (like rubber bullets and tear gas)? Maybe. What you will get is "enemy" weapons for those missions where you have to pass for a local (at least until the first shot is fired).

Single Player

The single player portion of the game will take it's cue from the original and try to improve on it. That may be the greatest challenge of all.

What characterized GR1 missions was non-linearity: The player was given great freedom to choose how to complete the mission and how to move around the map. Much more than later GR games. The usual single player mission these days is designed as an "obstacle course": The player will, at regular intervals, be faced with an obstacle (in the form of AI enemies) that must be dealt with before moving on. This game will be different. The best example is probably the Battlefield series of games: The AI doesn't have a pre-set plan. They act based on what is happening by trying to conquer the opposition flags and defend the ones they got. And it's quite random. Replaying the mission may have overall similarities, but the details will never repeat themselves in exactly the same way. Of course, this game will be rather more elaborate, since mission objectives are rather more diverse than flag conquest. The demands on the AI to be able to react dynamically are immense, and will probably require AI programming beyond anything we've seen today. Though, as always "cheating" is OK as long as the desired effect is achieved. A certain amount of AI stupidity (because the AI hasn't been told exactly what to do in advance) will also be tolerated as the price for non-linearity.

There will still be a need for heavy AI scripting though. In a hostage situation, you don't want the AI guarding the hostages to run off and chase you around the map. Artillerymen aren't going to abandon their guns to search for you either. And you don't want the AI to start swimming across rivers (even though they can swim) on a normal patrol; they'll use the bridge instead. There will also be the "human touch": The AI on guard will be relieved at intervals. The patrol may stop for a tinkle. Oh, and the guard may fall asleep on his post, just as the not-so disciplined patrol may be rather noisy, or indeed spend it's patrol time at the local bar. And, by the way, who says untrained insurgents always remember to have someone stand guard at night?

Squad based combat is a cornerstone of Ghost Recon. So you'll get a squad. The original GR had a squad of up to 6 operatives, divided on up to 3 different teams. Hopefully we can up that to 8 operatives on 4 teams, but it may go as low as 4 operatives for the game play to work smoothly enough. The primary limit is really gamer workload: Handling four 2-man teams in realtime while the enemy is shooting at you is probably more than enough to keep you occupied. You will be able to assign operatives to teams pre-mission, but you will also be able to re-arrange your teams during the mission.

There is no I in "team" as they say, and this goes for Ghost Recon too: Unlike the newer games, there is no hero character. Wave goodbye to Capt. Mitchell. Instead, you get soul-switching, so you can jump from one operative to another during the mission as you see fit. It's very practical for those instances when the AI get confused by a door or wall (happens no matter how much you program the AI). And it also allows you to take control at the most interesting moments (be the sniper when eliminating the guard, then be the point man when assaulting the building).

Still, a very elaborate squad command system will be needed. You can issue simple orders via first person view: Different Rules of Engagement (ROE), like "attack", "recon" etc. and different formations, as well as "go there", "breach door" (when you are pointing at a door) and stuff like that. But you really get to flex your commander muscles on the map. Much like the original Rainbow Six game, you get multiple waypoints for each team, different ROE for each waypoint and the good old "go-codes" to coordinate movement. And you get to tag enemies for sniping. Compared to more recent Ghost Recon games, this will be slow, fiddly and (even for an old-schooler like me) a little bit boring from time to time. But the reward is the ability to pull off elaborate tactics that are otherwise impossible. Of course, this is another demand AI quality: If you come up with an elaborate scheme to distract the enemy, then they must actually be distracted, rather than just waiting for you to appear in front of them like the mission designer predicted. You get to set up a plan pre-mission, but you can of course modify or completely change it during the mission. Give orders while paused? Hmm, maybe.

A mission editor will allow for custom missions, like attack, defend, "terrorist hunt" and whatnot. In these more random missions, you also get to choose the type and quality of the enemy AI: Skill, weaponry and indeed what kind of uniforms they wear. In addition, you get an editor to create entirely new maps and missions.

Cooperative Play

Since it is human players v. AI, there are few differences between single player and cooperative play. The command system will, for obvious reasons, be somewhat different. Human players rarely follow orders blindly the way the AI does, but that's all part of the charm. Those who have played GR1 will probably remember the very elaborate co-op lobby that allowed the host to tailor the game to the quality of the co-op team: Things like the number of respawns, either for each player or pooled for the team. More of the same, and indeed the ability for the host to lock out certain weapons and kit.

Also, instead of the player ordering about the AI, the players get to order each other about. Pre-mission there could be not only a briefing, but also a map where players can draw arrows to show their preferred route, circle objectives and mark potential threat areas. And since no battleplan survives the first contact with the enemy, being able to "discuss" things on this map during the mission would be nice too.

Multiplayer

I have neither the interest nor the expertise to say much about multiplayer. But that certainly shouldn't mean that multiplayer should be given less priority in any way. You multiplayers know much better than me what technical features you need for MP gaming to run as smoothly and effectively as possible. Two things though: First, like co-op, the more host options the better: Which weapons and kit to use, ping rate limits, teamkill limitations and all sorts of stuff. Second, I would hope new and innovative game types could be experimented with.

One option that could be intersting for both co-op and multiplayer is adding friendly AI (as someone else described in an earlier post): If you can only scrounge up, say, four guys for some MP, give each player a team of AI to play with. In an MP match there may only be two human players on each team, but there will be, say, eight characters running around shooting at each other. This is one of those things that, technical issues aside, will have to be tested to see if it works though.

Also, in most game types, the host can choose to play Blue v. Red (in terms of which equipment, clothing and weaponry is availible), as well as Blue v. Blue and Red v. Red. And, of course all kit availible on both sides.

Vehicles

Ghost Recon has always been about combat on foot. Even later games only added vehicles as something to transport the player into, and out of, the mission. Where it makes sense, there is no reason why players can't operate their weapons while being transported (i.e. fire their small arms from a truck or roof hatch of an APC, not operate the door guns on a helicopter or the cannon on an infantry fighting vehicle. The ability to command (for short periods) tanks in GRAW was actually a nice innovation IMO. However, if we're going for bigger maps, maybe driveable vehicles could or should be added? It would certainly have to be limited to the kind of vehicles spec ops units usually use, the ones they "own", like light vehicles (quad bikes, HMMWV's) and light rubber rafts. No tanks or aircraft. Leave that to games like Battlefield and Armed Assault. There is also the issue of how to control these, especially in single player, in a non-linear game, since simply scripting them to follow a certain path will only rarely work.

On the subject of vehicles, when calling in an airstrike or helicopter gunship support, don't expect it to come swooping into view. They'll keep a sensible distance, and usually all you'll experience is the woosh and bang of a missile or bomb. And by the same token, don't expect to find an enemy helicopter hovering 30 feet above while firing on you. Any pilot with more than two working brain cells will know to keep out of range of your small arms and use his more powerful weapons, or at least make fast strafing runs. Either use anti aircraft missiles (like the Stinger) or run for cover. Unless the helicopter is tasked specifically with finding and killing you, he probably won't hang around for long. There is also the possibility to interact more directly via an in-game laptop and datalink: You can get a feed from on-board cameras of helicopters, aircraft or UAV's to both scout for enemies and direct airstrikes more accurately. Such methods are already in use in places like Iraq and Afghanistan today.

Advanced Warfighter

Much of the criticism against recent Ghost Recon games is aimed at the Advanced Warfighter tech, but I don't entirely agree. "Advanced Warfighter" is a made-up name, representing recent real-life development in advanced soldier technology. The core of these real-life systems is improved cellphone-like communication through voice and text, accurate navigation for each soldier, and digital transfer of information. Basically, this advanced soldier will have TeamSpeak, plus a map that marks the location of himself and all friendly forces, plus the location of any known enemy. Sound familiar? Ever played Battlefield 2? Basically, these systems are striving to give the soldier what FPS players have had for years.

The overhead sattelite image is a fake (real photo reconnaissance sattelites pass overhead within minutes) and probably too high resolution anyway. The UAV and the MULE are real but don't offer enough control (and having a finite supply of weapons and ammo on the MULE wouldn't hurt either). And the red diamonds, while actually an OK abstracted way of showing you information from other sources, are too accurate (accurate enough to shoot through a wall to kill someone) and a bit too "just-point-at-the-diamond-and-shoot" idiot proof for my taste.

But hey, since I'm quite the military tech whore, there's lots of other fancy gadgetry we could get: Airburst grenade launcher. Remote controlled ground vehicle, with cameras or guns. Armed UAV's. A MULE vehicle with machinegun and anti tank missiles. A shoulder-fired anti tank missile with fibreoptics (so you can guide it via the nose camera), a camera ball you can throw like a grenade, and use the camera to check for enemies. "Burglar Alarm" sensors you can place that will warn you when enemies pass by. The thing is, from the very first game, the Ghosts were "employing cutting edge military technology". The vaunted OICW of the first game was as much a pototype back then as some of the stuff mentioned above is now. The point is that this Advanced Warfighter stuff doesn't really matter. It's other features, like those described in the previous chapters that really differentiate one game from another.

Conclusion

If you happened to like the GRAW games, you might feel a bit miffed that my idea of something better is so radically different, implying that GRAW wasn't good enough. And yes, I do think the latest Ghost Recon games suck, but that's just my personal opinion, and my opinion is no better than yours. What I've tried to show is not what a new Ghost Recon should be, nor what it ought to be, but simply an alternative to what it is now. And if it's any consolation, any new Ghost Recon game is far more likely to look like GRAW than anything I've described.

Respectfully

krise madsen

Edited by krise madsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

The Gameplay features we need to see in a tactical shooter.

…

[*]Buildings WITH DOORS!

…

oh I insist Rocky, and let me expend on this very important detail.

Functional doors, as in doors that open and close.

They explode from time to time. They break, squeak and slam. They naturally slow down the rhythm of the game play and prevent run and gun. Players take position before opening a door. Players that never played with each other instinctively wait for someone to cover them before opening a door.

Doors are sexy, and beautiful… ok maybe not. Still, a very important component of a FPS and part of the magic that made GR what it was/is.

Should I repeat it in Français you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

krise madsen, my apologies for not having answered your absolutely brilliant post earlier! And everyone please excuse me for quoting almost the entire thing - I cannot help myself, but I think this needs to be posted again and again!

Let me just say this: I would be willing to pay $500 for the game you described, and most certainly not because I have any money to throw around!

No, it is because - even on my tight budget - I spent more than that amount over the years on games that I had hoped would at least offer some of the features you so meticulously described!

Maybe this would be a solution to UbiSoft's dreamed-up "narrow market" theory? Make GR4 f#cking expensive, for all I care, but please: Give me the real Ghost Recon back!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Seeing as krise madsen has gone into the details of good tactical shooter gameplay above quite excellently, there is no need for me to just repeat much of what has been said in my own words. I just want to add a little emphasis to some key issues.

For me, gameplay in a modern tactical shooter should be primarily realistic, non-linear, and it must feature a host of random elements (actually, both non-linearity and randomness are just aspects of realism). This is not because I want to run a scientific simulation, but realism provides a very good foundation to make a game commonly approachable. All players can follow logic and personal experience in a realistic setting, and in the absence of a need for game-specific knowledge about unrealistic things (e.g. knowing how to grenade-spam all spawn points of your enemies), a natural/realistic and - above all - tactical gameplay can unfold.

For example, there is nothing very tactical in playing a mission again and again until you know where all opponents are and how to eliminate them without danger for yourself. This is just repetition - something I would prefer not to see in a tactical shooter. To avoid this typical trait of many FPS games, a tactical shooter requires the realism of non-linearity and randomness to provide a new experience - with new problems to solve - every time it is played. Otherwise it slides into the action genre where the only objective turns out to be a long sequence of repetitions until you "get it right".

A good tactical game should teach (or even force) the player to act - well - tactical, and the only way to avoid the typical run'n'gun'n'die'n'again style found in normal FPS games is realism. In reality you cannot try to survive the same battle over and over again by running around like a maniac with guns blazing - you have to approach combat carefully, analyze the situation, meticulously plan your every step - you have to be tactical, because every combat situation is unique and you only have that one try. As long as a game allows players to win without thinking by repetition alone, it becomes unrealistic and non-tactical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brilliant posts krise and Apex.

Krise, regarding the Advanced Warfare section of your post, I agree completely with incorporating the latest weapons you posted CURRENTLY in use. You mentioned however that the OICW from GR1 being as much a prototype then as this equipment is now, and concluded that therefore the Advanced Warfighter stuff doesn't matter......I assume you meant it doesn't matter with regards to gameplay?

I disagree with that. The OICW was merely a rifle with a very effective GL. It's a gun. It did not alter the game, or effect your tactics, nor "tag" enemies, and the list goes on and on. When I complain about the AW aspect of graw my criticism is almost entirely directed at the Narcom.

Even IF that type of complete control over a spec ops unit by "command" were in effect today, it's very presence in a pc game completely eliminates the need, or the practicality, of using the very tactics that make the GAMEPLAY so perfect in GR, or any other realistic tac game. The tension of being dropped at the LZ and on your own to complete objectives when and how you see fit.

As for this hovering eye in the sky, a winged UAV would be a welcome asset, gathering intel miles AHEAD of your movements and planned assault; however NO covert infiltration/recon squad on the planet would have a UAV hovering over their position behind enemy lines.

My conviction is that even though many prototype gadgets, specifically intel and communications, might be cool and neato, and even border on realistic, they erode most of the core gameplay and you end up with something other than a Ghost Recon.

a new take on "back to basics":

Wouldn't it be outstanding, and downright good form, for those developing the next GR to reintroduce the gaming world to realistic tactical squad based combat with "Ghost Recon 4".

Mission 01: Training. Not just an introduction to the game's features, but TRAINING. Fundamental tactics, proper movement, basic communication, and how each roll in the squad is effectively played. And not just lessons on how to beat the game, but put a real emphasis on playing the game as the soldier class you select and getting the most out of it. Not just grabbing the biggest gun and killing stuff.

If I were new to the genre and loaded the game and saw a training mission like this I would feel like "okay, this is going to be pretty amazing".

The typical run n gunner gets one thing out of playing. WINNING. Period. That's all that matters. And I feel sorry for them. The reason I started gaming - any game - was to experience something which I could not otherwise experience. In short, for the immersion. The creators of GR1 were able to cultivate this type of gamer. But we are now far and few between because that game was never properly followed up on with a sequel.

Here's another chance I suppose.

I'm sorry I didn't post in the same structure (list) as the original post Rocky. I just feel very strongly about the core feel of the game, and I'm so concerned with that, that I rarely get around to focusing on any particular features.

Edited by doubletap
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doubletap, good points :thumbsup:

The point I was trying to make about the Advanced Warfighter gadgetry was mainly in response to many comments that seemed to focus on the Advanced Warfighter features as the key flaw of GRAW. I disagree. IMO, key flaw of GRAW was that it wasn't a tac-sim but an action shooter. Remove the AW features and GRAW would still be an action shooter rather than a tac-sim.

Yes, AW gadgetry does change gameplay (or rather, tactics), and whether you like that or not is a matter of taste (being a bit of a tech freak I like it, just not implemented the way it was in GRAW) but it doesn't really change whether the game is a tac-sim or an action shooter.

NARCOM? Dear Lord, it still gives me the willies. Apart from being grossly unrealistic, it was simply a tool for injecting cutscenes and narrative into the game without actually interrupting the gameplay. The last thing I need in a tac-sim is in-mission cutscenes. The NARCOM acting was also toe-curlingly cheesy.

I'm with you on the 1st mission being an actual training mission. The first Rainbow Six game did this brilliantly: The gradual, step-by-step introduction to room clearing in the killhouse not only gave me a good foundation for subsequent play: It also showed me how this came was radically different from any previous FPS.

Respectfully

krise madsen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WOW, lot's of good talk going on here.

A few thoughts.

1.....Hay Krise. I thought I was long-winded. Maybe you and I can have a fish-story contest :rofl: .

2.....An idea for realism. In GR1, if your demo guy with the demo charges died and you did not have another demo guy, the mission stoped right there. In GRAW2, you could pick up weapons off the battlefield. In GR4, how about if you equip a ghost with some weapon or weapons, and he dies, you can pick up any of his weapons and continue on with the mission BUT in keeping with the idea of a weight restriction, the live ghost must lay down one or more of his weapons.

3.....Ever notice how you could be moving through trees and bushes and you cannot see an enemy who is in a position way WAY byond the trees and bushes and he can see and shoot through the vegetation like it wasn't there. I hate that.

OldGhost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

here is something that has bugged me for years, and led to my modding GR, GRAW and GRAW2 to correct what I felt was wrong. A.I. accuracy, awareness, and reaction speed.

Simply ramping up the difficulty by making enemy accuracy unbelievably high is not synonymous with increased realism. It is, in fact, UNrealistic. All gamers want a challenge, but I don't want merely increased difficulty, and certainly not at the expense of realism. Even the most arcade of games could be made extremely difficult. In GR there are more complex factors that should be considered when architecting the game's difficulty, the two most important probably being realism and immersion.

In real world combat, you miss. You miss A LOT. And as an elite unit, your enemies will certainly miss more than you do. But in the GR series, both enemy and ghost A.I. are rediculously accurate. You may not agree with me from purely a gamer's perspective, if you only have gaming as a reference. I've watched many, many GR and GRAW co-op and SP videos, and in the vast majority the player is doing nothing more than putting crosshairs on target and shooting. Basic video gaming, like "Duck Hunt".

So these gamers, with no concept of what a real firefight feels like or even looks like, (i.e. more rounds fired than you realize) might think the existing A.I. is not as unrealistically accurate as I say they are.

They are. And believe me you are missing out on an awesome experience by playing the games in their default state.

In combat you aren't just putting a mouse on target, your adrenaline is off the chart, you are trying to eliminate someone, and trying not to be killed, and trying to keep your mates alive. It's tense, and it's complex. The devs should strive to bring as much of that as possible to the gamer. Unfortunaely developers of games like COD focus entirely on trying to make combat "chaotic" and "cinematic" with constant scripted shouting, explosions, planes zooming by, etc etc. FAIL. When I say combat is complex I'm not refering to everything around you, I'm refering to the mental and physical state of someone in combat, and this has an impact on a shooter's accuracy.

So there's more to good A.I. than just being "smart". They should have human limitations, and in this case, the shooting accuracy of someone under fire, highly adrenalized, and with the amount of training one would expect them to have. They are not an army of SEAL snipers.

What I propose is simple.

1. realistic ability, and inability, to put rounds on target, instead of an army of superhuman jedi ninja snipers.

2. accurate body armor effectiveness, meaning if you take a shot on the armor, you likely survive, while shots taken to unprotected areas have their consequences. No more "health level".

There should not be a 99% chance that if I sprint from cover A to B, a sniper will hit me from 400 meters out!! Neither should there be the same chance that if YOU made the same sprint, that the same sniper should nail ME at that distance as I peak around a corner to cover you.

Ultimately what this all boils down to, which I now experience more or less on my amateurishly modded versions of GR and GRAW, is a more realistic level of tention and immersion. On the one hand, I know I stand a realistic chance at getting from cover A to cover B, or popping my head up for a shot, without being hit by several magic bullets, yet I also know that if I am indeed hit, it could be fatal. In other words, rather than counting on being able to withstand several hits, I can feel confident I can realistcally survive several misses. Yet the one with my name on it is very much out there, waiting for me to make one careless move. That, folks, is tension, and the firefights are incredible. And the accomplishment felt after completeing a mission WITHOUT respawning over and over until you memorize the game, will keep you playing a long time.

Edited by doubletap
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I started playing this game since I was 7.

Although I'm pretty good at GRAW2.

I still hope GR4 will totally change.

Why ? Only one reason. I want it to be realistic.

like Ghost Recon 1.

It's easy to kill and easy to die. so people will respect there life .not just care about the D/K ratio without teamwork.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

The Gameplay features we need to see in a tactical shooter.

This is a biggie, the original GR was so open because it has so many gameplay features that sadly have been eroded over the years instead of enhanced. This is your chance to identify those gameplay features that will make GR4 great!

SUMMARY

  • Command Map features
  • Sensible AI
  • Buildings WITH DOORS!
  • Realistic damage model i.e limp ezz good, medic eez bad, foot shot means limp not death, head shot means death.
  • Vehicles (land and air) available in missions, but not to drive (ie transport only).
  • 8 or 9 Man teams, and control of any one of them we want! (please lord, more than 4)
  • Realistic Fire and Movement (ie tactical)
  • Realistic Movement (3 speeds with short burst sprint only, no bunny hopping). Prone - no glitching. Lean (no 3rd person birds eye view around corners).
  • Non linear mission objectives
  • Map size, GR size as a minimum, but capability for larger maps for longer missions.
  • Destructable environment? Perhaps not there fully yet, but some kind of physics would help.
  • Ghillie suits that are difficult to spot, for humans AND AI.
  • Weapon ballistics inc. trajectories
  • soul-switching character control
  • ROE (like GR!)
  • Freindly AI i.e. non threatening civilians *please* this adds much needed realism and also many new mission opportunities and complexities.

I dissagree on some things. I think there SHOULD be a cover system. Leaning is damn annoying when it comes down to a big firefight :wall: . X-box has a good cover system. I mean.. in real life there are more ways to take cover then just leaning.. or the soldiers must be extremely limited in their movements. When they said ''specially re-disigned for the PC I was hoping for something good. But it turned out that only the AI can actually push themselves to a wall and I can only duck and run. Kinda frustrating... I hate ballistics because you'll get the CoD or BF2 gameplay. Just running straight at the enemy with a knife and stab him... bléh. :angry:

Some things I would like to see are ghuilly suites and more open environments like forests or smaller villiges. Ineed, like the very 1st GR. What about the AI? well.. I hate AI controlled soldiers who can somehow see me when I'm not exposed. For instance, I was hiding behind a wall once in prone position. Suddenly about 200 m away from me a tank comes up and just blasts me off the earth. I was sitting there like: :blink: what the...!? Or, when ur running past an enemy who is facing the other way. He just turns around and starts shooting... They did a realy nice job with visability in Splinter Cell, so why not in GR? 1 more thing about the AI: the teammates. They said they payed extra attention to it but it was a disaster. Every time they just screamed: I'm taking fire! and they prefered just to turn their backs on the enemy. I hope they fix that... :(

Can't wait to see what Ubi will make of it :thumbsup:

Edited by Elite Ghost
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about a formation system? So instead of micromanaging waypoints, you could have a series of preset formations (e.g. vertical line, horizontal line, arrowhead, staggered line, etc.) or maybe even a tool in the map to set specific points for the AI to follow you at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I would like graphics and physics to reflect 2010.....high quality graphics and realism increase the atmosphere.

I've only played GRAW2006/7, but I also have both the Arma1/2 demo's, but I don't particularly like either of them.

Give me good weapons like the MSG90 and don't limit how many I can hold, or if you do, enable it once I've completed a mission.

I posted this on the Ubi forums (GRAW-Console no less, still not sure why I did that) so I figured the easiest way to have my say was just to repeat myself:

Respectfully

krise madsen

That was the biggest gaming post I've ever seen :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

I would like to see the mule usable in every map as an option and also the aerial "spy in the sky" drone that should be an option in game too. Both should be destructable by the enemy.

Also, as we really havent seen it yet, the ability to drive vehicles and operate tanks, panhards, helicopters, boats etc.

An aerial insertion to a GRFS map via HALO insert would be nice as you would have to regroup etc.

The ability to carry two primary weapons, and half a dozen grenades as standard.

Heat vision option on the Night Vision goggles.

The ability to climb ladders and hop over walls.

All buildings should be enterable and doors closable.

Cant think of anything else at moment, but hopefully it will have some of this and NO DRM !!!

CJ

[Admin Edit: post moved to one of the actual wishlist threads (instead of in the pinned post giving Instructions about the wish list threads)]

Edited by Pave Low
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

ghost recon 1 is better and more realist : )

THey should remake GR 1 with better grphics , keeping the same sounds sweapons of that era and including some realist features

Because i they ######ed up our GR 1 of the ghosts of the 5th group : (

And they replaced em by some bunch of heros that never dies even with 9 bullets sometimes and having a kind of strange goggles :( and uniforms that wont never exist . "

GR1 gameplay was better , why? because it was more realist .

And i cant even mod it , " untouchable engine "

If they made a ghost recon 2 a well done one with the graphs and keeping its realism , adding some new features like medics a driveble vehicles like humves " not an advanced war imagination " they could get a " who knows perfect realist game" ? most realist game of the year?

Edited by soldier**
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Gameplay features we need to see in a tactical shooter.

This is a biggie, the original GR was so open because it has so many gameplay features that sadly have been eroded over the years instead of enhanced. This is your chance to identify those gameplay features that will make GR4 great!

SUMMARY

Command Map features

Sensible AI

Buildings WITH DOORS!

Realistic damage model i.e limp ezz good, medic eez bad, foot shot means limp not death, head shot means death.

Vehicles (land and air) available in missions, but not to drive (ie transport only).

8 or 9 Man teams, and control of any one of them we want! (please lord, more than 4)

Realistic Fire and Movement (ie tactical)

Realistic Movement (3 speeds with short burst sprint only, no bunny hopping). Prone - no glitching. Lean (no 3rd person birds eye view around corners).

Non linear mission objectives

Map size, GR size as a minimum, but capability for larger maps for longer missions.

Destructable environment? Perhaps not there fully yet, but some kind of physics would help.

Ghillie suits that are difficult to spot, for humans AND AI.

Weapon ballistics inc. trajectories

soul-switching character control

ROE (like GR!)

Freindly AI i.e. non threatening civilians *please* this adds much needed realism and also many new mission opportunities and complexities.

This sounds like Arma2 to me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...